Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
When I hear 'only men can....' it makes me think.....
Hmmmm.....Sounds like someone wants to be told..."You da man!" ... " It's all you"
..."you iz so special"...."your better than someone else, you know".
Whether there is a personal opinion of the suttas and there is a personal line drawn through the masses of text or not there still is what is written and what is not written.
This distinction is there and it has nothing to do with sexism since sexism was not invented at the time. It was invented later.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited August 2014
Sexism was not invented at the time? Come on now. That's like saying racism wasn't invented at the time. The term wasn't invented... the behavior existed. People were racist and sexist long before we recognized the folly of those ways of thinking and acting.
I'm all about seeing things as they are, but seeing that something is written in the sutras isn't seeing things as they are... it's seeing things as they are written. Written. That's it.
I feel like we're getting argumentative now, so I think I'm going to stop there.
Sexism was not invented at the time? That's like saying racism wasn't invented at the time. The term wasn't invented... the behavior existed. People were racist and sexist long before we recognized the folly of those ways of thinking.
So then it is ok that I consider you a butcherthoholic? That is a really nasty thing to be. It is a behaviour we will not have a concept of or even be relevant to society until year 5014. But hey the behaviour still exists already. Or does it? .
You think the world is round and circles the sun? Wait a few hundred years and see whats true then.
I'm all about seeing things as they are, but unless there's a way to see that women can't achieve the same, mentality, as a man... there's no rationalization that will sway me.
Again I ask you. Are you seriously suggesting that there is no mental difference between a man and a women?
And again I point out. There is nothing in the written Dhamma that says that a women cannot become a Sammasambuddha.
That is not the issue at all. So both men and women have the same capabilities in this regard.
@AldrisTorvalds said:
Victorious So it's improper to decide that any parts of the scriptures are incorrect? I just want to understand where you're coming from, because not even Christians that I know take everything in the Bible as-read. If your position is "If you can't disprove it, you should believe it.", then we'll never agree, because that's not my mode. My mode is not to believe until there's sufficient justification and/or evidence to believe, not the other way around. That's me being a Skeptic, so...
The world is not dualistic. This is why someone said that logic is only the beginning of wisdom.
There most often is a third choice in real life. And a fourth and a fifth...
The alternative to not being correct(true) is not always or even seldom that they are incorrect(false). They can also be dontcare, figalistic or brunch.This is my perception of Scepticism.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
@Victorious I'm just going to politely remove myself from this discussion. In the end it's going to become an issue of taking things on faith (that's pretty clear now), and I don't do that, so we'll never see eye to eye. Feel free to PM me, but I don't think this thread needs this argument.
So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
@Jason said:
I agree, and your comment brings to mind two passages in particular. This one from SN 5.2:
It also brings to mind Chapter 7 of the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra. A popular zen sutra. The story is longer but it's about Sariputra meeting a Goddess and both of them transforming back and fourth between male and female.
"If the elder could again change out of the female state, then all women could also change out of their female states. All women appear in the form of women in just the same way as the elder appears in the form of a woman. While they are not women in reality, they appear in the form of women. With this in mind, the Buddha said, `In all things, there is neither male nor female."
Hello dear friends! I have been following this thread with much interest (I mean, if I am not going to make it to Buddhahood only because of my sex I might as well ease up on things and take a vacation, right? LOL).
All samsaric aggregates are an obstacle in some extent. It HAS happened I had to interrupt a meditation because "those days" came before they should. Yes. But I have also seen male friends having to go to the "gentlemen room" due to prostate issues, again and again, equally interrupting their meditation.
But has that been a significant problem? Not really.
Once I heard that we couldn't meditate well because of the way our brain works, always changing the focused object, almost multitasking, while meditation demands single pointed focus of the mind on its contemplated object. Yeah...men are famous for being able to think in just one thing... But that thing, while blissful, is not necessarily the path to Nirvana. (Hahaha! Don't cut my neck! I am just joking there! I will even make you a sandwich!! LOL!)
Guys, gals...there is no Dharma for girls and one for boys. (Or, have I been in the wrong classroom? That would explain so much...mmm)
As far as I see it, we all have the same obstacles to conquer, being those "pink" or "blue" (just saying! I am aware pink used to be for boys and blue for girls! Geez! Please don't arrest me Dharma Police!) or no coloured, or mixed, or whatever. There is no difference: we all suffer our own samsaric rebirth with all its things entitled to it. Ah....last week there was such a cute guy meditating next to me in class....then...should I hope there are no men in the Pure Land so I can meditate in peace?
Or should I try and learn to keep my mind in place, if I ever wish to become a Buddha? Folks, it is not our fault if you get distracted by us. And it is not your fault if we get distracted by you and your charms. Or any other combination possible.
In emptiness there is no gender. It lacks inherent existence.
...just saying...
(As per usual, I am not good at replying, so...I will try not to)
@AldrisTorvalds said:
Victorious I'm just going to politely remove myself from this discussion. In the end it's going to become an issue of taking things on faith (that's pretty clear now), and I don't do that, so we'll never see eye to eye. Feel free to PM me, but I don't think this thread needs this argument.
After a good nights sleep I got it. You mean since becoming a Buddha for a woman requires rebirth the argument is on faith?
But I was not arguing the existence of rebirth. I was arguing scriptures written for all to read. That is a fact not faith.
Removing oneself from that fact without proper motivation is requiring faith.
/Victor
EDIT: I mean it would be a fact that it is written if it is written in the suttas. I have never bothered to find and read it. So I guess I only go on faith here really. But I hope you get what I mean.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
@Victorious I certainly was never arguing that the scriptures didn't say it. I think we've hoarded this thread too much, so I've sent you a couple PMs (and I'm off to bed. Good night!).
I should apologize for being so absent from this discussion.
On average men and women may be similar, but like you said, (I hope that I am quoting the correct participant correctly) in some cases women and men may be very different.
My example would be world class athletes. If women were required to compete with men, there would be no women athletes, with the possible exception of long distance swimming or dog sled racing.
Also, I wonder if world class scientists might have measureable differences. When I read the account of how Mr Summers, the President of Harvard (I hope that is the correct name) was forced from office because he made an off-hand remark about how men might be better than woman in science, I was really surprised. The female faculty did not argue that he was wrong because of some fact or measureable reason. He was wrong because their religion said it was wrong. One faculty member said it was wrong because it made her want to vomit. That kind of argument is really surprising considering that a Harvard faculty member made it.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
In an enormous mount of cases women and men are different; physically, mentally, emotionally, psychologically. The mistake is made when people assume that it means one is better than the other, which is of course, utter nonsense.
And Nibbana is a genderless condition.
3
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited August 2014
@Ghid said: My example would be world class athletes. If women were required to compete with men, there would be no women athletes, with the possible exception of long distance swimming or dog sled racing.
There are women body-builders that put the average man to shame, and physical attributes (size, strength, speed etc.) don't seem to have any place in the enlightenment debate. The only place we should focus on differences would be the mind, and I don't think the important necessary qualities would come down to gender...
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
And you do know that tennis has mixed doubles...? I don't think the ability for different genders to compete at the same sport necessarily comes down to brute strength alone... There are female Jockeys who race horses against men; try powering 1400lbs at full tilt - and over jumps, too....
@federica said:
In an enormous mount of cases women and men are different; physically, mentally, emotionally, psychologically. The mistake is made when people assume that it means one is better than the other, which is of course, utter nonsense.
And Nibbana is a genderless condition.
That is a good point. The discussion began as a discussion about how women might be in a lower cast along the path, not about their Right Livelihood.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
The moment we start considering that women are in a lower caste, we begin to subtly dehumanise them.
Any thought which makes them in any way inferior, automatically demeans who they are.
Don't fall into the trap of believing the hype. Because it's a lie.
@federica said:
And you do know that tennis has mixed doubles...? I don't think the ability for different genders to compete at the same sport necessarily comes down to brute strength alone... There are female Jockeys who race horses against men; try powering 1400lbs at full tilt - and over jumps, too....
Tennis is an interesting example. A champion tennis athlete, I don't remember the name. She lived back in the Dark Ages. I might find her name by googling "lesbian lover tennis." She might be more famous for that. She said that the men are stronger, but the women are just as interesting. People are just as likely to buy tickets.
On that note l need to say that Dad loves to ogle female body builders. Mom lets him ogle, as long as she ogles at the same time. I have the same arrangement with my boyfriend. They are not much interested in beauty pageants, but female beach volleyball and female NASCAR drivers and female jockeys catch their attention.
I’m not much a feminist, but when I began to understand the idea, I decided that I would play by the boy’s rules because I thought that when women wanted to compete against boys they wanted to change the rules.
When I met my boyfriend, I learned that we are both runners. I run marathons. He runs 100 mile races.
I thought, “Holy cowabunga, how is possible?”
He said that he was training the next weekend. He would run from Disneyland to the Chinese Theater in Hollywood, about 50 miles.
I was so excited that I managed to get two other girls to run with us. That is Mom’s rule. Always go places in groups. The boys modified the run, not because we were girls, but because none of us had ever run 50 miles. We stopped to rest at the McDonalds along the route.
About halfway, the boys started a cadence.
Hi de hey hey hi de ho
What da ya say? What da ya know?
Rainbow rainbow don’t be blue
Your TI was a rainbow too.
When the verses turned vulgar, we girls (I almost choke when I write that) were so dismayed, the polite way to say it, that we stopped running. The boys understood. They, very gallantly, agreed to drop the vulgar lyrics. I’m somewhat, maybe not a lot, embarrassed that we made them change their rule.
My boyfriend uses me to wipe the tennis court. The gap there is closing a little, but not much. We study together with other students. His mother says that I help him a lot. Life is not so much about which group is best.
We do things together, which are mixed traditional-feminist. I open the door for him, but the reaches over me, and I go through first. Sortacool.
My water polo coach insists that the gap between women and men is decreasing. Seems to me, that fact is a good argument for recognizing that men and women are different. If we insist that women and men are the same, women would compete against men, and they would have no opportunity to close the gap.
@Ghid said:
Also, I wonder if world class scientists might have measureable differences. When I read the account of how Mr Summers, the President of Harvard (I hope that is the correct name) was forced from office because he made an off-hand remark about how men might be better than woman in science, I was really surprised. The female faculty did not argue that he was wrong because of some fact or measureable reason. He was wrong because their religion said it was wrong. One faculty member said it was wrong because it made her want to vomit. That kind of argument is really surprising considering that a Harvard faculty member made it.
Interesting. When I was still teaching earth science, in general boys did better, but my best students were always girls. I asked other colleagues about their perception, and to some extent it depended on the type of science course, but more agreed that, in general, boys did better, while girls were often the best students. Perhaps it was dependent on different interests.
Later, as an administrator, I was always interested in a PE teachers view we had about girls versus boys in physical education. She always purported that girls and boys were completely equal in physical education competitions, but always insisted that the events be held separately by sex. And, when we would play golf, she would insist that the women playing start on the forward tee, while the men would start on the back part of the tee.
It just seems to me that while there may be individual differences, in general, men are better at some things, women better at others. In fact, it's not so much better than different.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited August 2014
@Ghid said: Tennis is an interesting example. A champion tennis athlete, I don't remember the name. She lived back in the Dark Ages. I might find her name by googling "lesbian lover tennis." She might be more famous for that. She said that the men are stronger, but the women are just as interesting. People are just as likely to buy tickets.
>
You may be speaking about Billie Jean King - who incidentally, agreed to participate in a one-to-one tennis match with a Male professional opponent - and beat him roundly. Excuses abound as to how or why he lost. The fact is - he lost.
I’m not much a feminist, but when I began to understand the idea, I decided that I would play by the boy’s rules because I thought that when women wanted to compete against boys they wanted to change the rules.
>
Quite the opposite. As far as i am given to understand, women are happy to play by the same rules, providing the playing field is level. Quite literally, even!
I was so excited that I managed to get two other girls to run with us. That is Mom’s rule. Always go places in groups. The boys modified the run, not because we were girls, but because none of us had ever run 50 miles. We stopped to rest at the McDonalds along the route.
>
About halfway, the boys started a cadence.
>
.....
>
When the verses turned vulgar, we girls (I almost choke when I write that) were so dismayed, the polite way to say it, that we stopped running. The boys understood. They, very gallantly, agreed to drop the vulgar lyrics. I’m somewhat, maybe not a lot, embarrassed that we made them change their rule.
>
I find it distressing that you're apologising for demonstrating perfectly natural and understandable annoyances. You seem to have been brought up to believe that even though women do occupy a status in the family, it's still a notch inferior to that of the male. You need to get out of that mind-set....
My boyfriend uses me to wipe the tennis court. The gap there is closing a little, but not much. We study together with other students. His mother says that I help him a lot. Life is not so much about which group is best.
>
The question should never even arise...
My water polo coach insists that the gap between women and men is decreasing. Seems to me, that fact is a good argument for recognizing that men and women are different. If we insist that women and men are the same, women would compete against men, and they would have no opportunity to close the gap.
Given that the gap is decreasing, one could understandably presume that eventually, there will BE no gap.
Nobody is insisting that 'men and women ARE the same'. But that is no excuse or valid reason for there being a gap.
Since we're talking about sports, I think the PGA and the LPGA should be just one organization where all professional golfers play in the same tournaments by exactly the same rules and standards.
What do you think?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I completely agree. And I think it fair to point out that statistically-speaking, Women tennis players at Wimbledon, actually get more prizemoney than the men, game for game, set for set; the men play a maximum of 5 sets per game, the women only 3.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Because apparently men have more stamina and physical strength to be able to endure the marathon, whereas it seems women don't. I think it should be tested, myself. When you look at players like Serena Williams or Navratilova, I really do question such discrimination....
Well, buddhists on a whole are imperfect beings. We are not immune to the prejudices of our time periods. Thinking of buddhism on a whole as being "perfect" sounds an awful lot like an attachment, after all.
The practices and insights gained therein are of primary importance. The dogmas written down my imperfect beings, however devout they may have been, are not always quite so pristine, yes?
And another point might be that equal does not mean the same, and I think we should start with restrooms at concerts and sporting events. I never drink anything at a concert or a ball game because the lines are too long at the restroom. To be equal, events should have more women's toilets. The length of the lines should be the measure of equal, not the number of toilets.
In school I compete with the brightest student. We have more than 40 students in the classes. It is standing room only for visitors.
Special education classes have 15 max.
That is equal because I can almost learn it myself. I know I would likely go off in the wrong direction without the teacher, but he or she need only point the direction, I need not be prodded and rewarded like the students in the special education classes.
I think the definition of equal has variable meanings, and can see why 2000 years ago people looked at the world the way it was and they thought that women were different.
And I intend to open the door for my boyfriend, and then get a warm, fuzzy feeling when he holds the door open to let me go in first. If that upsets Betty Friedan, the political activist from back in the Dark Ages, then so be it.
Frankly @Ghid, I found your post so "odd" that it led me to an epiphany.
First let me tell you why I found it so odd. When you said, "2000 years ago people looked at the world the way it was and they thought that women were different". Men and women aren't different????? Men and women are different. The body parts of men and women are different. The body chemistry of men and women is different. It's very unlikely (100 times less likely) that I will get breast cancer than you; it's even more unlikely that you will suffer from prostate cancer than I will. The average woman in the U.S. is 5',4.5". The average man is 5',10". The average woman in the U.S. weighs 166 pounds, the average man 180. I bet you don't have near as much body hair as I do.
The problem is that you are equating not being equal as being worse than.
And that's a fallacy.
The vast majority of elementary school principals are women. The vast majority of high school principals are men. So what? That doesn't say anything about men or women being better than each other. The vast majority of shop teachers are men. The vast majority of home ec teachers are women. So what? That doesn't say anything about men or women being better than each other. But it does tell me there's a difference.
I earlier mentioned golf. If the PGA tomorrow proposed that the PGA and the LPGA merge and all tournaments be competed in equally by men and women, the LPGA would refuse. That does not mean that men are better than women.
You can birth a baby. I can't. Doesn't mean men are inferior to women.
I don't want to knit and crochet like my female neighbor. She doesn't want to do woodworking. So what? One is not better than the other...but it is different.
As for my view, vive la difference!
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I'm not sure how old @Ghid is, but I would imagine she is in her young-adult formative years; certainly younger than 25, possibly older than 18... As such, we should understand that her brain (if that age bracket is accurate) has not completely finished developping yet, therefore some frank and obvious logic, to us, may not appear so to her.
She has a long way to go, I would guess. Starting off on the right foot is a bonus - how lucky that she is probing such matters at her age, now!
She's on a learning curve, and I think the 'different doesn't mean superior/inferior' fact, is taking hold....
Comments
When I hear 'only men can....' it makes me think.....
Hmmmm.....Sounds like someone wants to be told..."You da man!" ... " It's all you"
..."you iz so special"...."your better than someone else, you know".
... :rolleyes: ....
Buddhism is about seeing things as they are.
Whether there is a personal opinion of the suttas and there is a personal line drawn through the masses of text or not there still is what is written and what is not written.
This distinction is there and it has nothing to do with sexism since sexism was not invented at the time. It was invented later.
Sexism was not invented at the time? Come on now.
That's like saying racism wasn't invented at the time. The term wasn't invented... the behavior existed. People were racist and sexist long before we recognized the folly of those ways of thinking and acting.
I'm all about seeing things as they are, but seeing that something is written in the sutras isn't seeing things as they are... it's seeing things as they are written. Written. That's it.
I feel like we're getting argumentative now, so I think I'm going to stop there.
So then it is ok that I consider you a butcherthoholic? That is a really nasty thing to be. It is a behaviour we will not have a concept of or even be relevant to society until year 5014. But hey the behaviour still exists already. Or does it?
.
You think the world is round and circles the sun? Wait a few hundred years and see whats true then.
Again I ask you. Are you seriously suggesting that there is no mental difference between a man and a women?
And again I point out. There is nothing in the written Dhamma that says that a women cannot become a Sammasambuddha.
That is not the issue at all. So both men and women have the same capabilities in this regard.
It says that a Sammasambuddha is never a woman.
The world is not dualistic. This is why someone said that logic is only the beginning of wisdom.
There most often is a third choice in real life. And a fourth and a fifth...
The alternative to not being correct(true) is not always or even seldom that they are incorrect(false). They can also be dontcare, figalistic or brunch.This is my perception of Scepticism.
@Victorious I'm just going to politely remove myself from this discussion. In the end it's going to become an issue of taking things on faith (that's pretty clear now), and I don't do that, so we'll never see eye to eye. Feel free to PM me, but I don't think this thread needs this argument.
Time to hit the bunk. See you around. Torvalds.
Everything is on faith. All things contain it. It is nothing you can decide not to do.
Unicorns are never blue.
I agree, and your comment brings to mind two passages in particular. This one from SN 5.2:
And this one from Galatians:
2.45 angels can dance on the head of a pin, with room for all others . . .
There we are smugly aligning and quoting who and what perfection entails based outside our knowing, gender and experience . . .
Then we return. To where? To where we are in the genderless moment. In the perfect samsara of Bodhis, demons, humans and fishy things . . .
The far shore is this body. The far shore is this existence. The realization is present like the essenceless Buddha Nature.
Hello Mum we might say . . .
It also brings to mind Chapter 7 of the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra. A popular zen sutra. The story is longer but it's about Sariputra meeting a Goddess and both of them transforming back and fourth between male and female.
Hello dear friends! I have been following this thread with much interest (I mean, if I am not going to make it to Buddhahood only because of my sex I might as well ease up on things and take a vacation, right? LOL).
All samsaric aggregates are an obstacle in some extent. It HAS happened I had to interrupt a meditation because "those days" came before they should. Yes. But I have also seen male friends having to go to the "gentlemen room" due to prostate issues, again and again, equally interrupting their meditation.
But has that been a significant problem? Not really.
Once I heard that we couldn't meditate well because of the way our brain works, always changing the focused object, almost multitasking, while meditation demands single pointed focus of the mind on its contemplated object. Yeah...men are famous for being able to think in just one thing... But that thing, while blissful, is not necessarily the path to Nirvana. (Hahaha! Don't cut my neck! I am just joking there! I will even make you a sandwich!! LOL!)
Guys, gals...there is no Dharma for girls and one for boys. (Or, have I been in the wrong classroom? That would explain so much...mmm)
As far as I see it, we all have the same obstacles to conquer, being those "pink" or "blue" (just saying! I am aware pink used to be for boys and blue for girls! Geez! Please don't arrest me Dharma Police!) or no coloured, or mixed, or whatever. There is no difference: we all suffer our own samsaric rebirth with all its things entitled to it. Ah....last week there was such a cute guy meditating next to me in class....then...should I hope there are no men in the Pure Land so I can meditate in peace?
Or should I try and learn to keep my mind in place, if I ever wish to become a Buddha? Folks, it is not our fault if you get distracted by us. And it is not your fault if we get distracted by you and your charms. Or any other combination possible.
In emptiness there is no gender. It lacks inherent existence.
...just saying...
(As per usual, I am not good at replying, so...I will try not to)
Oh yeah!
.
After a good nights sleep I got it. You mean since becoming a Buddha for a woman requires rebirth the argument is on faith?
But I was not arguing the existence of rebirth. I was arguing scriptures written for all to read. That is a fact not faith.
Removing oneself from that fact without proper motivation is requiring faith.
/Victor
EDIT: I mean it would be a fact that it is written if it is written in the suttas. I have never bothered to find and read it. So I guess I only go on faith here really. But I hope you get what I mean.
@Victorious I certainly was never arguing that the scriptures didn't say it. I think we've hoarded this thread too much, so I've sent you a couple PMs (and I'm off to bed. Good night!).
nite! Will look at the PM:s
I should apologize for being so absent from this discussion.
On average men and women may be similar, but like you said, (I hope that I am quoting the correct participant correctly) in some cases women and men may be very different.
My example would be world class athletes. If women were required to compete with men, there would be no women athletes, with the possible exception of long distance swimming or dog sled racing.
Also, I wonder if world class scientists might have measureable differences. When I read the account of how Mr Summers, the President of Harvard (I hope that is the correct name) was forced from office because he made an off-hand remark about how men might be better than woman in science, I was really surprised. The female faculty did not argue that he was wrong because of some fact or measureable reason. He was wrong because their religion said it was wrong. One faculty member said it was wrong because it made her want to vomit. That kind of argument is really surprising considering that a Harvard faculty member made it.
In an enormous mount of cases women and men are different; physically, mentally, emotionally, psychologically. The mistake is made when people assume that it means one is better than the other, which is of course, utter nonsense.
And Nibbana is a genderless condition.
There are women body-builders that put the average man to shame, and physical attributes (size, strength, speed etc.) don't seem to have any place in the enlightenment debate. The only place we should focus on differences would be the mind, and I don't think the important necessary qualities would come down to gender...
And you do know that tennis has mixed doubles...? I don't think the ability for different genders to compete at the same sport necessarily comes down to brute strength alone... There are female Jockeys who race horses against men; try powering 1400lbs at full tilt - and over jumps, too....
That is a good point. The discussion began as a discussion about how women might be in a lower cast along the path, not about their Right Livelihood.
The moment we start considering that women are in a lower caste, we begin to subtly dehumanise them.
Any thought which makes them in any way inferior, automatically demeans who they are.
Don't fall into the trap of believing the hype. Because it's a lie.
Those finding entry limitations to Nirvana
never seem to speak of it personally.
Tennis is an interesting example. A champion tennis athlete, I don't remember the name. She lived back in the Dark Ages. I might find her name by googling "lesbian lover tennis." She might be more famous for that. She said that the men are stronger, but the women are just as interesting. People are just as likely to buy tickets.
On that note l need to say that Dad loves to ogle female body builders. Mom lets him ogle, as long as she ogles at the same time. I have the same arrangement with my boyfriend. They are not much interested in beauty pageants, but female beach volleyball and female NASCAR drivers and female jockeys catch their attention.
I’m not much a feminist, but when I began to understand the idea, I decided that I would play by the boy’s rules because I thought that when women wanted to compete against boys they wanted to change the rules.
When I met my boyfriend, I learned that we are both runners. I run marathons. He runs 100 mile races.
I thought, “Holy cowabunga, how is possible?”
He said that he was training the next weekend. He would run from Disneyland to the Chinese Theater in Hollywood, about 50 miles.
I was so excited that I managed to get two other girls to run with us. That is Mom’s rule. Always go places in groups. The boys modified the run, not because we were girls, but because none of us had ever run 50 miles. We stopped to rest at the McDonalds along the route.
About halfway, the boys started a cadence.
Hi de hey hey hi de ho
What da ya say? What da ya know?
Rainbow rainbow don’t be blue
Your TI was a rainbow too.
When the verses turned vulgar, we girls (I almost choke when I write that) were so dismayed, the polite way to say it, that we stopped running. The boys understood. They, very gallantly, agreed to drop the vulgar lyrics. I’m somewhat, maybe not a lot, embarrassed that we made them change their rule.
My boyfriend uses me to wipe the tennis court. The gap there is closing a little, but not much. We study together with other students. His mother says that I help him a lot. Life is not so much about which group is best.
We do things together, which are mixed traditional-feminist. I open the door for him, but the reaches over me, and I go through first. Sortacool.
My water polo coach insists that the gap between women and men is decreasing. Seems to me, that fact is a good argument for recognizing that men and women are different. If we insist that women and men are the same, women would compete against men, and they would have no opportunity to close the gap.
Interesting. When I was still teaching earth science, in general boys did better, but my best students were always girls. I asked other colleagues about their perception, and to some extent it depended on the type of science course, but more agreed that, in general, boys did better, while girls were often the best students. Perhaps it was dependent on different interests.
Later, as an administrator, I was always interested in a PE teachers view we had about girls versus boys in physical education. She always purported that girls and boys were completely equal in physical education competitions, but always insisted that the events be held separately by sex. And, when we would play golf, she would insist that the women playing start on the forward tee, while the men would start on the back part of the tee.
It just seems to me that while there may be individual differences, in general, men are better at some things, women better at others. In fact, it's not so much better than different.
>
You may be speaking about Billie Jean King - who incidentally, agreed to participate in a one-to-one tennis match with a Male professional opponent - and beat him roundly. Excuses abound as to how or why he lost. The fact is - he lost.
>
Quite the opposite. As far as i am given to understand, women are happy to play by the same rules, providing the playing field is level. Quite literally, even!
>
>
>
>
I find it distressing that you're apologising for demonstrating perfectly natural and understandable annoyances. You seem to have been brought up to believe that even though women do occupy a status in the family, it's still a notch inferior to that of the male. You need to get out of that mind-set....
>
The question should never even arise...
Given that the gap is decreasing, one could understandably presume that eventually, there will BE no gap.
Nobody is insisting that 'men and women ARE the same'. But that is no excuse or valid reason for there being a gap.
Since we're talking about sports, I think the PGA and the LPGA should be just one organization where all professional golfers play in the same tournaments by exactly the same rules and standards.
What do you think?
I completely agree. And I think it fair to point out that statistically-speaking, Women tennis players at Wimbledon, actually get more prizemoney than the men, game for game, set for set; the men play a maximum of 5 sets per game, the women only 3.
Okay, but why 5 sets versus 3?
Because apparently men have more stamina and physical strength to be able to endure the marathon, whereas it seems women don't. I think it should be tested, myself. When you look at players like Serena Williams or Navratilova, I really do question such discrimination....
Yes, women should suffer as much as men.
Well, buddhists on a whole are imperfect beings. We are not immune to the prejudices of our time periods. Thinking of buddhism on a whole as being "perfect" sounds an awful lot like an attachment, after all.
The practices and insights gained therein are of primary importance. The dogmas written down my imperfect beings, however devout they may have been, are not always quite so pristine, yes?
And another point might be that equal does not mean the same, and I think we should start with restrooms at concerts and sporting events. I never drink anything at a concert or a ball game because the lines are too long at the restroom. To be equal, events should have more women's toilets. The length of the lines should be the measure of equal, not the number of toilets.
In school I compete with the brightest student. We have more than 40 students in the classes. It is standing room only for visitors.
Special education classes have 15 max.
That is equal because I can almost learn it myself. I know I would likely go off in the wrong direction without the teacher, but he or she need only point the direction, I need not be prodded and rewarded like the students in the special education classes.
I think the definition of equal has variable meanings, and can see why 2000 years ago people looked at the world the way it was and they thought that women were different.
And I intend to open the door for my boyfriend, and then get a warm, fuzzy feeling when he holds the door open to let me go in first. If that upsets Betty Friedan, the political activist from back in the Dark Ages, then so be it.
You're comparing the differences between women and men to the differences between gifted students and special education students?
Oh my.
Yes, I must admit, that does sound a little confusing.... :scratch: .
Frankly @Ghid, I found your post so "odd" that it led me to an epiphany.
First let me tell you why I found it so odd. When you said, "2000 years ago people looked at the world the way it was and they thought that women were different". Men and women aren't different????? Men and women are different. The body parts of men and women are different. The body chemistry of men and women is different. It's very unlikely (100 times less likely) that I will get breast cancer than you; it's even more unlikely that you will suffer from prostate cancer than I will. The average woman in the U.S. is 5',4.5". The average man is 5',10". The average woman in the U.S. weighs 166 pounds, the average man 180. I bet you don't have near as much body hair as I do.
The problem is that you are equating not being equal as being worse than.
And that's a fallacy.
The vast majority of elementary school principals are women. The vast majority of high school principals are men. So what? That doesn't say anything about men or women being better than each other. The vast majority of shop teachers are men. The vast majority of home ec teachers are women. So what? That doesn't say anything about men or women being better than each other. But it does tell me there's a difference.
I earlier mentioned golf. If the PGA tomorrow proposed that the PGA and the LPGA merge and all tournaments be competed in equally by men and women, the LPGA would refuse. That does not mean that men are better than women.
You can birth a baby. I can't. Doesn't mean men are inferior to women.
I don't want to knit and crochet like my female neighbor. She doesn't want to do woodworking. So what? One is not better than the other...but it is different.
As for my view, vive la difference!
I'm not sure how old @Ghid is, but I would imagine she is in her young-adult formative years; certainly younger than 25, possibly older than 18... As such, we should understand that her brain (if that age bracket is accurate) has not completely finished developping yet, therefore some frank and obvious logic, to us, may not appear so to her.
She has a long way to go, I would guess. Starting off on the right foot is a bonus - how lucky that she is probing such matters at her age, now!
She's on a learning curve, and I think the 'different doesn't mean superior/inferior' fact, is taking hold....